budget telephoto lens

Bukitimah

Senior Member
I know this has been discussed many times. I hope to hear form users their experiences with the respective lenses before jumping into it.

I am using the faithful Nikon AFS 70-300 VR. Main problem beside the zoom, it the slow lens under low light. Of course the f2.8 VR lenses would solve most of the problem, not to mention those super lenses. Let's say I am on a budget. Which of the following lenses would be the best option or I should stick to my AFS 70-300 VR

1) Nikon 80-200 f2.8 non VR -2 ring - USD600 pre-owned, or
2) Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 non OS - USD700 pre-owned

How would the VR be affected.

Thank you
 

stmv

Senior Member
well,, hand held, you will loose about a 1.5 stops without VR, but on a tripod, VR is turned off, so no difference at all.

I own own the 80-200 2.8, a tank, always been happy except for its weight. I do not hike with this lens, but do use it.

are the newer lens a hair sharper, maybe, but they are more then a hair more expensive.

anytime you are into fast and zooms, your are into weight.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
well,, hand held, you will loose about a 1.5 stops without VR, but on a tripod, VR is turned off, so no difference at all.

I own own the 80-200 2.8, a tank, always been happy except for its weight. I do not hike with this lens, but do use it.

are the newer lens a hair sharper, maybe, but they are more then a hair more expensive.

anytime you are into fast and zooms, your are into weight.

do you have a chance to compare your 80-200 with the afs 70-300 VR? Would love to know the difference. And is it worth the change.
 
Top